Archive for the ‘Wales Wide Web’ Category

For the last three years we have been employing intern students at Pontydysgu. We try to provide a rich learning environment and involve the students in as many different aspects of our work as we can. And we also try to learn from intern students: from their experiences and knowledge. Especially interesting for us is cross cultural learning. Our first intern was from Wales, our second from Romania, our third from England and Anuraj who has been working with us this summer is from India.

Anuraj has recently returned to India where his university term starts next week. he has just sent us this account of his time in Pontydysgu.

“As this being my first blogpost at Pontydysgu blogs, here is my introduction:

I am Anuraj Dadhich, an undergraduate student of Interaction Design at Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, India.

Three months ago, after the completion of the sixth semester I was quite lucky to get this opportunity of being an intern at Pontydysgu during my summer holidays. The thought of getting involved with the European working culture for the first time was exciting but I was quite nervous too because as this also being a short term internship (like the previous one at Impelsys, Bangalore) I wanted to give and get the maximum out of it. Fortunately, I can say that what I got in these three months was much more than I expected. However, in the terms of “giving”, I cant say anything right now as it isn’t over yet 🙂

The first day of internship, was nothing less than a disaster for both of us (me and Graham). He came up with few of his brilliant ideas and I explained my previous works and experiences and that is funny but both were certainly different from each other. I was a downfall but didn’t last very long.

So, I decided to get myself acquainted with Pontydysgu and its work environment (which was so friendly, I felt like being in a family) and then tried to get myself adjust somewhere in it. This being in process, me and Graham just talked for hours about each other backgrounds, experiences and new ideas and it didn’t take much time to realise that my encounter with Pontydysgu was not a bad idea at all. Ask Graham about his mind turnouts but here are mine :

Since the last couple of years, I have been involved in various projects/internships/workshops which gave me a platform to apply my learnings in different environments/applications. So, my mind being constricted to that was expecting a similar internship this time also. But although this as a design intern and me definitely working as an interaction designer, was a different and spectacular one. This intern, makes me realise that you should never constrict yourself to something very specific because you never know what interests you the most and what you are best at until you experience it. Every experience adds something to every human and this is what I realise can be called as ‘learning’ and everyone does that either formally or informally.

I like internships because nobody here runs for grades, marks or impressing the professors. every task comes with learning and outcomes. And I am proud to say that it happened here too. I started working on new type of projects, new softwares, new applications and all that in this new but absolutely friendly work environment of Pontydysgu.
Morover, the world cup football and the radio set fixation for Barcelona conference was fun!!!

I went to Oslo, Norway for a Euronet-PBL conference, the purpose of my visit was to get more and more familiar with the project, project partners and to get some media (video interviews, photographs etc.) for the web presence of the project. My next trip was to Zurich to attend the sonisphere festival (\m/ Metallica \m/ ) but it was a nasty one : Two days, soaked in rain, standing in knee deep mud while witnessing the metal gods of all time.

With all this Fun & Work, 3 months flew like 3 days and when I look back now I see a perfect learning period (both formally & informally). With my special thanks to Graham and Jo I end this by saying this undoubtedly that these days were the best days of my life (the last ones specially) and I would definitely like to be involved with Pontydysgu in the future.”

Ludger Deitmer has drawn my attention to an interesting article in yesterdays edition of the Weser Kurier newspaper (sadly the article does not appear to be in the online edition). The article was based on interviews with young people undertaking apprenticeship in Bremen in north Germany.

I have previously written in Wales Wide Web about the advantages of the apprenticeship system in Germany as providing high skills and socially prestigious training for young people. Indeed over 50 per cent of school leavers in Germany progress through the apprenticeship system, spending part of their time in companies and part in vocational schools.

In recent years the system has been under pressure due to a shortage of training places, but recent figures suggest this is changing. In Hamburg and Munich there are now surplus apprenticeship training places, in Bremen there is about a balance between places being offered by companies and young people seeking apprenticeship places.

However, attention is now turning to the quality of the training on offer. And Marius Fischer, an apprentice in the logistics industry, was fairly scathing. Apprentices, he said were just given menial work to do, referring to one period of three weeks spent scanning documents into a computer. The so called company training was boring with few learning opportunities. He rarely saw a trainer. Apprentices, he said, were just being treated as cheap labour. “This work is so stupid, a chimpanzee could learn to do it”, he said. A further complaint was that apprentices were not given sufficient experience in different areas of the company to understand the entire social and economic process.

Although there has been some attention paid to quality of training, in Germany and in the European Union, little attention has been paid to the quality of the teaching and learning process. Work based learning can be a powerful form of learning. However, for this to happen it requires the work place to be designed for learning with challenging work and learning tasks. And although managers may play an important role in that workplace and word process design, possibly more important is the role of trainers. A series of research studies have indicated that more and more people are taking some responsibility for training as part of their job. But despite this, and despite a number of well sounding policy initiatives, little attention has been paid to the training of trainers. Whilst the subject of teacher training is a high priority, there almost seems an assumption that skilled workers can automatically provide training.

Of course Marius Fischer’s experience does not reflect apprenticeship training as a whole in Germany. But is is a reminder of the importance of teaching and learning processes for young people and that the development of rich learning processes cannot be left to chance be it in the school or in the workplace.

Stephen Downes wrote last night that national programs supporting open educational resources (OERs) are springing up. He noted the publication of a Green Paper describing and making recommendations for OER initiatives in Brazil. Also, in Holland, he said, the government has launched the Wikiwijs project (literally: Wiki Wise), which “is an open, internet-based platform, where teachers can find, download, (further) develop and share educational resources. The whole project is based on open source software, open content and open standards.” Meanwhile the Washington State colleges board has passed a resolution saying “All digital software, educational resources and knowledge produced through competitive grants, offered through and/or managed by the SBCTC, will carry a Creative Commons Attribution License.”

To these initiatives can be added the launch of JISC OER Infokit (interestingly developed on a PBWorks wiki site) aiming to explore a range of considerations from specific technical issues to barriers and enablers to institutional adoption. They say “This infoKit aims to both inform and explain OERs and the issues surrounding them for managers, academics and those in learning support. It is aimed at senior managers, learning technologists, technical staff and educators with an interest in releasing OERs to the educational community.”

Stephen Downes quotes the Brazil Green Paper saying: “Education policy and projects that combine infrastructure investment with a coherent ‘network’ approach to content are the most likely to have significant positive impact and realize the goals of the policy. The ability of the Internet to create radical increases in innovation is not an accident – but it is also not guaranteed to happen simply through putting computers and courses onto the network. This ‘generative’ effect of networks comes from the combination of open technologies, software platforms that allow creative programming, the right to make creative and experimental re-use of content, and the widespread democratization of the skills and tools required to exercise all of those rights.”

The issue of democratisation is taken up in an excellent blog post entitled “Open Education: the need for critique” by Richard Hall. Richard says ” democratic practices in education are critical in enhancing our broader socio-educational life, and underpin radical re-conceptualisations of educational practice, for example mass intellectuality, a pedagogy of excess and student-as-producer.” He goes on to say: “To use the term learning revolution demands a critique of the political economics of education, and the social relations that exist therein. This cannot be done in terms of OERs without an engagement with critical pedagogy.”

Richard points to risks in present discussions about PLEs, OERs and informal learning.

That the role/importance of individual rather than social empowerment is laid bare, and that within a libertarian educational structure, the focus becomes techno-determinist. The risk here is that, accepting the position of others in meaningful, socially-constructed tasks, technology is the driver for individual emancipation [although we rarely ask “emancipation for or from what?”]. Moreover, we believe that without constant innovation in technology and technological practices we cannot emancipate/empower ever more diverse groups of learners.

That we deliver practices that we claim are radical, but which simply replicate or re-produce a dominant political economy, in-line with the ideology of accepted business models. So that which we claim as innovatory becomes subservient to a dominant mode of production and merely enables institutions to have power-over our products and labour, rather than it being a shared project [witness the desire for HE to become more business-like].

That we fetishise the outcomes/products of our labour as a form of currency. This is especially true in the case of open educations resources, which risk being disconnected from a critique of open education or critical pedagogy, and PLEs which risk being disconnected from a critique of their relationship to our wider social relations.

That we fetishise the learner as an autonomous agent, able to engage in an environment, using specific tools and interacting with specific OERs, so that she becomes an economic actor, rather than seeing her engagement as socially emergent and negotiated.

He puts forward a number of questions around iopen education and OERs.

How do we prioritise engagement with the broader, open context of learning and education, with trusted peers? How do we raise our own literacy around openness, in order to legitimise sharing as social practice and as social process, and not as a response to a target of OER-production-as-SMART-objective?

Is the production of OERs a means of furthering control over our means of production and our labour? Is there a risk that the alleged transparency of production of OERs is used to further control and power-over, for example, teachers and teaching by impacting contracts of employment?

Though education, how do we enable the types of participatory engagement and re-production of groups like the Autonomous Geographies Collective or Trapese, where the production of OERs is a secondary outcome to the re-fashioning of social relationships that it enables? By so doing, we might just enable groups to engage with the activity-areas that Harvey highlights as a process of production, rather than fetishising the production of things.

How do we resist the increasing discourse of cost-effectiveness, monetisation, economic value, efficiency that afflicts our discussion of open education? How do we move the argument around sustainability and open education away from a focus on economic value? Too often our discussion of open education is reduced to a discussion of OERs and this, in turn, is reduced to a discourse of cost and consumption. As a result, our role in education is commodified and objectified.

Do we ask who is margnalised in the production of OERs or in open education? Are non-Western cultures engaging in open education and the production of OERs through the languages of colonialism or by focusing on native socio-cultural forms? At what point do OERs and open education become part of a post-colonial discourse focused upon new markets?

How do we utilise OERs to open-up trans-disciplinary approaches to global crises, like peak oil and climate change? How do we enable the emerging array of open subject resources to be utilised across boundaries (be they personal, subject, programme, course, institutional or national), in order to challenge sites of power in the University and beyond? These resources enable ways of challenging hegemonic, mental conceptions of the world and framing new social relations. This requires curriculum leadership. These crises require socio-educational leadership.

These questions challenge us to reconceptualise what we mean by open education. More than that they force us to start exploring a critical pedagogy and what that implies in terms of meanings and our actions as educators and educational researchers and developers I hope Richards blog post gets the attention from the community it deserves. I will be trying to answer some of the questions on this blog in the next few days.

As regular readers will know I have been thinking a lot about learning contexts lately. And having some interesting onversatio0ns in different media with Fred Garnett. When I was looking for something else this afternoon I found an email from him sent in April which I had somehow overlooked. I am not quite sure what the email says. For some reason the text is not wrapping. However he does say “you should get it together on your blog.” So I will and here is a section of the short (apparently unpublished) paper attached to the email which I find very interesting.

“Cumulatively we can draw these “Learner-Generated Contexts” points together to conceptualise a new, adaptive model of the relationships between informal, non-formal and formal learning

1. In an era of social networks where users have both the tools and the experience to self-organise, and with learning being a social process, the informal dimension of learning is better defined as that domain within the learning process where people organise themselves, either to meet self-determined goals or to meet the pre-determined goals of an institution; people are how we scaffold the organisation of learning

2. In an era where an ever greater amount of learning content is on offer and new ways of providing learning resources, as objects, tools and templates, are made available then the non-formal dimension of learning could be defined as those resources used for learning; resources are how we scaffold the process of learning

3. In an era where traditional learning is being subverted by new forms of collaboration and knowledge construction, crowd-sourcing wikipedia, participatory science, then formal learning could be defined as providing reliable sources of accreditation; institutions are how we scaffold the accreditation of learning.”

One obvious question is what do we want to achieve? Basically we have three aims. One is to enhance the confernce experience for those attending. ECER is run by some 27 or so networks and with so many attending, it can be difficult to keep in touch with everything going on – or even to just find old friends. We hope the use of technology will help get people together, find old and new friends and allow discussion of ideas – before, during and after the conference. Secondly we hope to start to open the conference outwards – to involve those not able to attend face to face and to enhance connections with the wider communities of education research. And thirdly we are trying to build a small history of the conference – not just through papers – but through recording people’s reflections of their experiences and learning.

Now down to the technology – what are we doing?

Firstly we have agreed a hashtag – #ECER2010 and are encouraging delegates to use the hashtag.

We are planning to stream a number of the keynote sessions – more details soon.

We will be making short videos with twelve of the different network conveners as well as vox pops with conference delegates.

And finally, we will be broadcasting 3 special issues of the Sounds of the Bazaar LIVE internet radio programme from 1300 – 1330 Finnish time (12-12.30 Central European time) on 25, 26 and 27 August. Point your browser at http://radio.jiscemerge.org.uk:80/Emerge.m3u and this will open the LIVE radio stream in your MP3 player of choice. You can also send us your questions and comments by Twitter using the #ECER2010 hashtag. And to follow Sounds of the Bazaar LIVE events throughout the summer join the SoB Facebook group.

So this is our idea for the European Conference on Educational Research Amplified. But what have we left out? What else could we do? All ideas very welcome.

For some time, I have been working at developing a Technology Enhanced Boundary Object (TEBO) to help Careers Advisers (PAs) understand Labour Market Information (LMI). But I am increasingly interested in how we can access and visualise live LMI as part of the careers advice process. These are notes I have written about the idea.

What is linked data?

The Web enables us to link related documents (from linkeddata.org). Similarly it enables us to link related data. The term Linked Data refers to a set of best practices for publishing and connecting structured data on the Web. Key technologies that support Linked Data are URIs (a generic means to identify entities or concepts in the world), HTTP (a simple yet universal mechanism for retrieving resources, or descriptions of resources), and RDF (a generic graph-based data model with which to structure and link data that describes things in the world).(Tom Heath, including excerpts from Bizer, Heath and Berners-Lee (in press))

What is the relationship between Linked Data and the Semantic Web?

Opinions on this topic differ somewhat, however a widely held view is that the Semantic Web is made up of Linked Data; i.e. the Semantic Web is the whole, while Linked Data is the parts. Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the Web and the person credited with coining the terms Semantic Web and Linked Data has frequently described Linked Data as “the Semantic Web done right.”

Using Linked data with Careers PAs in the UK

Though the MATURE project we have undertaken extensive research and consultation with PAs in different Connexions companies including in England and Wales around the use of Labour Market Information in Careers Advice, Information and Guidance. Work undertaken through the project has aimed to allow research and easy access to documentation around different careers including LMI. We are also aware that all LMI requires interpretation – s stage of knowledge maturing – and one aim has been to allow easy forms of interpretation though tagging etc. A second aim has been to allow the development of an organisational knowledge base through sharing the results of LMI research. LMI is based on various data, collected by different government agencies and by for example the sector skills councils. In the past access to this data has been restricted. Additionally it requires considerable knowledge and skills to be able to manipulate and interpret large data sets. Inevitably much of the interpetation is over generalised and is frequently out of date.

Open Data

In autumn of 2009, a new web site was launched in the UK based on an initiative by Tim Berners Lee and Nick Shadbolt. Data.gov.uk seeks to give a way into the wealth of government data. As highlighted by the Power of Information Taskforce, this means it needs to be:

easy to find;

easy to license; and

easy to re-use.

The aim is to publish government data as RDF – enabling data to be linked together. The web site says their approach is based on:

Working with the web;

Keeping things simple: we aim to make the smallest possible changes that will make the web work better;

Working with the grain: we are not looking to rebuild the world. We appreciate that some things take time; others can be done relatively quickly. Everything has it’s own time and pace;

Using open standards, open source and open data: these are the core elements of a modular, sustainable system; and

Building communities, and working with and through them (both inside government and outside).

The new UK government has committed itself to backing this initiative and increasingly local government organisations are providing open access to data. Many of the key data sets for LMI are available through the data.gov.uk site including time series data on employment in different occupations, average earnings, job centre vacancies (at fine grained local office level and over a 10 year time series), qualifications, graduate destinations etc. along with more generalised but critical data such as post codes. All data can be queried in real time through a SPARQL interface.

Thus there is considerable potential to run queries and provide linked data providing valuable Labour Market and Careers information.

For instance:

A post code or location based query around a particular occupation could reveal:

the average pay for that job

job centre vacancies in that job over the past at a local level

By querying external databases this could be extended to include:

iCould videos about that career (there are something like 1000 high quality videos available)

Job description along with required qualifications

Where xcri course information data is available the app could provide information on local courses related to that career (Note – xcri data standard compliance is patchy in the UK).

Maturing Knowledge – the role of the PA

Whilst this system would be a great advance on anything presently available, it is not perfect. LMI data still requires interpretation. For instance job centre data has a known bias towards public sector employment, lower paid jobs and short term employment. The search only covers past data and may not reveal longer term labour market trends. Thus ideally following such a search the PA would be able to add brief notes before saving the search. These overall results could then be packaged to sent to a client as well as stored within the organisational system. To use the new information and knowledge sources being made available through the Careers Project requires new interpretation skills on behalf of the PAs. Thus the development of a linked data app would also be accompanied by the development of the TEBO which aims to provide informal learning for PAs around using LMI

Visualisations

Although a early version of the system might well be text based, it would enhance data interpretation to provide visualisations of the data.It may be possible to do this dynamically using for instance APIs to the IBM Open Source Many Eyes application.

The UK based Jisc published an interesting report yesterday. The Researchers of Tomorrow study presents emerging findings from the first annual report of a major three-year study into the information seeking behaviour of Generation Y doctoral students. According to Jisc “the research shows that there are striking similarities between students born between 1982 and 1994 and older age groups.” As such it represents yet another blow to Prensky’s idea of Digital Natives.

The first annual report of the longitudinal study includes evidence-gathering from three groups of doctoral students in the UK, including: a cohort of 60 Generation Y doctoral students from 36 universities; responses to a national context-setting survey returned by over 2,000 Generation Y scholars and responses to the same national context-setting survey returned by 3,000 older doctoral students.

Generation Y students and older students concur on a number of areas:

– Open access and open source – like students of other ages, Generation Y researchers express a desire for an all-embracing, seamless accessible research information network in which restrictions to access do not restrain them. However, the annual report demonstrates that most Generation Y students do not have a clear understanding of what open access means and this negatively impacts their use of open access resources, so this is an area to be followed up in the next year.

– Networked research environment – both Generation Y and older students express exasperation regarding restricted access to research resources due to the limitations of institutional licenses. This is born from a sophisticated knowledge of the networked information environment and students regularly speak favourably about sector-wide shared services and resource sharing.

The research indicates, however, potentially interesting and important divergences between Generation Y and older doctoral students; for example, where students turn for help, advice and support and attitudes to their research environment.

– Supervisor and librarian support – Generation Y scholars are more likely to turn to their supervisors for research resource recommendations than older doctoral students. Also, 33% of Generation Y students say they have never used library staff for their support in finding difficult to source material.

– Using library collections and services – Library collections are used heavily by students in their own institutions, but only 36% of Generation Y students have used inter-library loan services compared to 25% of older students, with 42% of arts and humanities students using these services regularly compared to 13% among science students.

Here is the promised second batch of videos from the Personal Learning Environments Conference held in Barcelona earlier this month. Joyce Seitzinger interviewed a number of organisers, unkeynote speakers and participants as part of her “What my PLN means to me” project.

I’ve just spent some time organising my Google docs into folders. Why? Because I have so many of them.

I used to use a very old version of Microsoft word for mac on my desktop machine. When I found it would not deal with docx formats I moved over to open office and Neo Office J. But at the same time I started using Google docs because of the ability to share documents. In fact I had already been using Wordly before Google bought it. However, it seems that Google sat on Wordly for a long time. Although Docs sort of worked it was still clunky compared to a desktop word processor. But with the latest upgrade to docs it now seems a better working environment than any of my local word processors. And off course I can access it from any of my computers or from my phone.

But what excites me is the casual and simple collaboration that online documents enable. Of course wikis always had that functionality. But somehow most of my experiments with collaboration with wikis didn’t quite work. People were unwilling to change another person’s work. And the mark up code was off putting for many.

Furthermore it is very easy to see who you can build an online portfolio using google apps or even a Personal Learning Environment.

So what is the downside? In one word – Google. Do we want to trust our working environment to a mega large multi national corporation making most of its money out of advertising. I sued to be sure that I did not. But now I guess I am getting more pragmatic. Google apps offers a lot of functionality and is free. Especially in present economic times free is good. Of course Google could disappear or do something I hate so much I do not want to use their software any more. But I am backing up my docs to a local version anyway. In some ways the debate is similar to the issue raised at the PLE conference in Barcelona as to whether institutions should be providing PLE applications for learners. My conclusion was that I do not really care who provides a Personal Learning Environment, as long as it is controlled by the learner. And as long as Google continues to allow that degree of control I can see myself increasingly using their applications. At least they are not Blackboard!

Multi media was very much in evidence at the PLE conference in Barcelona earlier this month. Besides the live streaming and a dazzling array of ipads and other handheld devices, we were able to use CitiLab’s own wonderfully appointed multimedia studio. Joyce Seitzinger interviewed a number of organisers, unkeynote speakers and participants as part of her “What my PLN means to me” project. There is some good stuff here, well worth viewing.

Search Pontydysgu.org

News Bites

Zero Hours Contracts

Figures from the UK Higher Education Statistics Agency show that in total almost 11,500 people – both academics and support staff – working in universities on a standard basis were on a zero-hours contract in 2017-18, out of a total staff head count of about 430,000, reports the Times Higher Education. Zero-hours contract means the employer is not obliged to provide any minimum working hours

Separate figures that only look at the number of people who are employed on “atypical” academic contracts (such as people working on projects) show that 23 per cent of them, or just over 16,000, had a zero-hours contract.

Resistance decreases over time

Interesting research on student centered learning and student buy in, as picked up by an article in Inside Higher Ed. A new study published in PLOS ONE, called “Knowing Is Half the Battle: Assessments of Both Student Perception and Performance Are Necessary to Successfully Evaluate Curricular Transformation finds that student resistance to curriculum innovation decreases over time as it becomes the institutional norm, and that students increasingly link active learning to their learning gains over time

Postgrad pressure

Research published this year by Vitae and the Institute for Employment Studies (IES) and reported by the Guardian highlights the pressure on post graduate students.

“They might suffer anxiety about whether they deserve their place at university,” says Sally Wilson, who led IES’s contribution to the research. “Postgraduates can feel as though they are in a vacuum. They don’t know how to structure their time. Many felt they didn’t get support from their supervisor.”

Taught students tend to fare better than researchers – they enjoy more structure and contact, says Sian Duffin, student support manager at Arden University. But she believes anxiety is on the rise. “The pressure to gain distinction grades is immense,” she says. “Fear of failure can lead to perfectionism, anxiety and depression.”

Teenagers online in the USA

According to Pew Internet 95% of teenagers in the USA now report they have a smartphone or access to one. These mobile connections are in turn fueling more-persistent online activities: 45% of teens now say they are online on a near-constant basis.

Roughly half (51%) of 13 to 17 year olds say they use Facebook, notably lower than the shares who use YouTube, Instagram or Snapchat.

The survey also finds there is no clear consensus among teens about the effect that social media has on the lives of young people today. Minorities of teens describe that effect as mostly positive (31%) or mostly negative (24%), but the largest share (45%) says that effect has been neither positive nor negative.